Quick Links

Club PA 2.0 has arrived! If you'd like to access some extra PA content and help support the forums, check it out at patreon.com/ClubPA

The image size limit has been raised to 1mb! Anything larger than that should be linked to. This is a HARD limit, please do not abuse it.

Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.

Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

[Chat]edy!

Posts

Neitzche is definitely performative, and since he was a quasi-relativist, it's going to be possible to make anything resembling a coherent presentation of his thought. But that's part of the genius of his work, the performative contextualizing of his "truth."

I don't know if it is genius or crazy.

There's the interpretation that Nietzsche is demonstrating the impossibility of crafting a coherent position by giving contradictory arguments. The problem is I do not think there a virtue in writing as much as he did just to say "Dudes, shit be relative."

If he had one coherent idea to articulate one would think that he could, you know, coherently articulate it.

If i write "contradictions occur" is that less compelling than writing something contradictory?

Well Neitzche was writing at the beginning of the the german positivist movement, so it was pretty necessary that he argue for relativism over and over and over again. Also, my understanding is that each book gets more spinozafied -- that with each book, he goes further towards a metaphysics in which Will is Being and each individuation is will willing itself as a mode of its will.

Or something like that. I have no clue what exactly "will" is in 19th century German Philosophy, because it sure as hell ain't volition.

if I dropped a 1920s gun, like an SAA or a Thompson into a lake... how fucked would it be?

It depends on how much water exposure there is. Brief exposure to water can cause rust on some parts. Prolonged exposure can cause a little more. If it's been taken care of, then some anti-rust agents will have been in place in the barrel. You may have to check and keep an eye on some of the internal parts. If it's a Thompson (which is a very different gun then the SAA) then most likely it's an NFA registered piece. I have no idea what the current prices for them would be but it would be in the ball park of a decent car.

My bad, I didn't explain things clearly at all. I'm gamemastering a pulp Cthulhu game for some guys set in the 20s and there's a very real chance they're going to get dumped in a lake and I wanted to know if their guns would be still in working order.

They would still function. Water won't adversely affect a weapon's functionality until it's started to rust, which can take a while (several hours) given that almost all weapons have a fair amount of bluing on their internal components.

Fine sand would fuck up a firearm more than water (only in scenarios where the exposure is brief and the weapon is cleaned eventually). You're really not going to find many scenarios that would prevent a revolver from functioning though. If you want the environment to affect their weapons give them automatics, not revolvers. The 1911 and C96 would fit the just as easily, and would be more affected by the environment.